Table 4.
Multivariable analysis of chemosensitive DLBCL patients receiving RIC conditioning regimens
| N | OR | OR Lower CI | OR Upper CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-relapse mortality | |||||
| Conditioning regimen | |||||
| Flu/Bu | 128 | 1 | 0.021 | ||
| Flu/ Mel 140 | 250 | 2.19 | 1.26 | 3.81 | 0.005 |
| BEAM | 73 | 2.27 | 1.07 | 4.83 | 0.03 |
| NRM adjusted for significant covariates: age, HCT-CI, remission status at HCT, prior auto-HCT, and GVHD prophylaxis. | |||||
| Progression/relapse | |||||
| Conditioning regimen | |||||
| Flu/Bu | 128 | 1 | 0.091 | ||
| Flu/ Mel 140 | 250 | 0.69 | 0.49 | 0.96 | 0.03 |
| BEAM | 73 | 0.81 | 0.52 | 1.27 | 0.36 |
| Progression/relapse adjusted for significant covariates: age and remission at HCT. | |||||
| Progression free survival | |||||
| Conditioning regimen | |||||
| Flu/Bu | 128 | 1 | 0.991 | ||
| Flu/ Mel 140 | 250 | 1.02 | 0.77 | 1.36 | 0.87 |
| BEAM | 73 | 1.02 | 0.70 | 1.48 | 0.93 |
| Progression free survival adjusted for significant covariates: remission at HCT and GVHD prophylaxis. | |||||
| Overall survival | |||||
| Conditioning regimen | |||||
| Flu/Bu | 128 | 1 | 0.041 | ||
| Flu/ Mel 140 | 250 | 1.48 | 1.07 | 2.04 | 0.02 |
| BEAM | 73 | 1.56 | 0.98 | 2.46 | 0.059 |
| Overall survival adjusted for significant covariates: KPS, HCT-CI, remission status at HCT, and prior auto-HCT. | |||||
Abbreviations: DLBCL- Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; RIC- Reduced Intensity Conditioning; allo-HCT- Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation; Flu/Bu- Fludarabine/Busulfan; Flu/Mel- Fludarabine/Melphalan; BEAM- BCNU/etoposide/cytarabine/melphalan; HCT-CI- Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Specific Comorbidity Index; auto-HCT- Autologous Hematopoietic cell transplantation; GVHD- Graft versus Host Disease
1
Overall P values show whether the main effect was significant based on the Wald test in the final model. The other P values are from pairwise comparisons between two conditioning regimens. All pairwise comparisons were from the Wald test.